On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:28:22AM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> I'd imagine that it would, JMHO, but it makes little sense, at least for
> prime-time level maintenance of a kernel who's architecture, while valid
> for use in many areas, is still far limited, even in light of 2.4.
The maintenance of the 2.0-tree will continue. I see no point in
ceasing to maintain it just because the release of 2.6. They simply do
not target the same audience.
> The advancements which 2.6 will bring, over 2.4, will be extraordinarily
> different, in terms of overall architecture it seems. Even if it's only
> a 20% architecture difference from 2.4, think of how much further from
> 2.0 that is.
Yes, and that is why 2.0 is still maintained; for some users, the step
between 2.0 and a later release is too large when it comes to how many
userland programs that need to be upgraded/retested/rewritten.
Really, there is little reason to worry; my contribution to the
development of 2.5 (and a forthcoming 2.6/2.7/2.8/...) would probably
not be much larger were I to drop maintenance of the 2.0-tree. Possibly,
Marcello and Linus would receive a few more odd fixes for typos and
the Config-files, and maybe some MCA-related fixes, but as things stand
right now, the fact that I only have a dialup-connection stands between
me and serious development (<subliminal message>anyone care to sponsor a
faster connection or hire me?</subliminal message>)
Regards: David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:26 EST